Viswanathan K's Thoughts

Timur (the Lame) was the most famous ancestor of the group that would come to be known as the Mughals. He was not a descendant of Genghis Khan himself, but had married women from Genghis’ line so he could claim Chingizid heritage.   When still in Central Asia, Babur was kicked out of his kingdom by the Uzbeks, who claimed Chingizid blood, writes Ira Mukhoty in her biography of the Mughal emperor, Akbar . No surprise that Babur hated the Chingizid. Obviously, he did not want to be called a Chingizid. Instead, he preferred to be known as a Timurid (descendant of Timur). It is ironic that when they came to rule India, Babur’s line came to be known as the Mughals, the Persian word for Mongols (Chingizid), not as the Timurids! Even the victors don’t get to decide what they are called.   Being kingdom-less also explains why Babur came to India to settle, not just loot and return the way Timur and so many other Central Asians had in the past. It also explains Babur’s tolera...

I remember our history books mentioning many famines in India. I always assumed it was tragic but unavoidable for that era. Which is why I was taken aback when I read Shashi Tharoor’s An Era of Darkness .   Here is a startling contrast. During British rule, between 30 to 35 million Indians died due to famines. Post independence, no famines have taken place. Even though our own governments were inefficient, corrupt and not exactly quick to respond. How come? Because in democracies with a free press, governments are held more accountable, which then triggers effective response. “Lack of (true) democracy and public accountability, however, is what was characterized British rule in India.”   Lack of accountability aside, the British had 3 considerations that drove them to intervene as minimally as possible to famine. (1) They believed in letting the market forces decide (demand and supply), (2) the Malthusian doctrine (overpopulation was the cause and the famine was na...

Other people, other groups, other organizations, other countries seem to do it <replace with the topic of your choice> effortlessly. They’re better. They’re having more fun. Those are feelings all of us experience.   Morgan Housel argues that it almost certainly isn’t true. Ask yourself if what you are seeing is the complete picture about that entity. Chances are that it isn’t. “There’s a filter. Skills are advertised, flaws are hidden. ” Even seemingly coherent teams aren’t that way, if only you could pull back the curtain: “All the messy personalities and difficult decisions that you only see when you’re inside, in the trenches. ” And no, others aren’t having a better life than you all the time: “Instagram is full of beach vacation photos, not flight delay photos.”   There’s even a saying about this: “The grass is always greener on the side that’s fertilized with bullshit.”   Occasionally, we do get to learn of the cracks behind the perfe...

We humans have lungs. But ants don’t. Why do some living things need lungs while others don’t?   In So Simple a Beginning , Raghuveer Parthasarathy starts from the basics. All creatures need a way to exchange gases, usually to take in oxygen and remove carbon dioxide. The easiest way is for the surface of the creature to do the gas exchange. A tiny creature like an ant does exactly this – the surface areas of its internal tubing is sufficient for gas exchange of its tissues.   Next, take a larger creature. Simple physics kicks in. The surface area of the living thing increases as a square of the increase in its length whereas its volume increases as the cube. If you increase the length by a factor of 3, the area increases by a factor of 3 2 = 9 times while its volume increases by 3 3 = 27 times. The volume, as you see, increases much faster than the area. The larger volume means the creature has a lot more cells, which in turn means, the creature needs a lot more gas...

In China, Kublai did what the Romans did for northern Europe, writes John May in The Mongol Empire . By that, he means the creation of physical artifacts (roads, canals) and systems (efficient taxation, trade, postal-relay). And of course, the introduction of paper money (as an easier, lighter, convenient alternative to coins made of various metals). ~~   By the time Genghis died, the man had created an empire 4 times larger than Alexander’s and twice the size of Rome, ha had not made great inroads into China. His successors doubled that size.   And yet, while the Romans have left a lot of both “hardware” (aqueducts, stadia) and “software” (art, law, language), very little of either survives from the Mongol era. (Other than in China, as we saw in the earlier blog on Kublai). “No buildings, no philosophies, no universities, no moral guidance, no literature for the subject peoples.”   Why the difference? “Because the Romans, the Greeks and the British had something to say, ...

Many say the railways were a positive product of British rule of India. Shashi Tharoor’s An Era of Darkness looks into this. In 1843, Governor General Lord Hardinge was at least honest when he said that the railways would be beneficial for the “commerce, government and military control of the country”.   Look at how it was constructed. (1) The British government guaranteed 5% return on bonds (very high for that time) used to raise money to build the railways. And why not? After all, it was taxes on India that would be used to pay the interest, not British taxpayer money. (2) This created a perverse incentive for British companies laying the tracks in India. That 5% interest was on the principal, so the more money the company claimed it needed, the higher the interest payment. Thus, there was no incentive to optimize or reduce costs. The opposite was the case. Each mile in India thus cost £ 18,000. For comparison, a mile at the same time was costing just £ 2,000 in the US. ...